User talk:Ms-pater

Hello Ms-pater, and

If you'd like to test what Wikipedia can do, check out the sandbox - just type and save the page and your text will appear. That's the beauty of a Wiki.

For more information check out our

I hope you'll enjoy your time here, but be warned, it can become addictive! Feel free to message me, I'm more than happy to help. As an added tip, sign any message you post so users know that you've said it. To do so is delightfully simple, just use the wikicode ~~~~. Jake 11:23, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, welcome!

Hi. Sorry to say, MS-pater, but your edits are redundant. "Soviet Republic" and "communist dictator", - well, doh. A party representing Romanians taking unilateral decisions - well, doh. Latin being the language of Hungary - well, doh. The only reasons for them seem to be:

• not a succint analysis of what Kun was, but your frustration with what Hungary did to itself through Kun in front of the Entente. Sorry to bring you news from the 1920s, but I doubt a Kun-less Hungary would have fared better with a Wilson in Washington and a Bratianu in Bucharest. Accuracy, not POV (be it "mine" or "yours")!
• not your vision of what the PNR was, but your inabilty to see that whatever process of this sort is supposed to be unilateral (i.e.seccession). You may not approve of it, and I don't necessarily celebrate it, but there you go. Accuracy, not POV (be it "mine" or "yours")!
• your irrational belief that "Transylvania as a word of Latin origin" is in there because people want to present the notion that it is a "Romanian word". That is a lot of preventive thinking, dude, and it looks quite paranoid. Your reaction to it is whimsical: "Transylvania" is a precisely that, a word in Medieval Latin - since no country had an "official language" in the Middle Ages, Hungary would indeed be the one exception in the Universe. Nay, Latin was the language of culture throughout Catholic Europe, not the "language of Hungary". Accuracy, not POV (be it "mine" or "yours")!

Let me add: I am not a "Romanian chauvinist", not even a nationalist of any sort (you should have the good taste to check my past history); when you edit into texts, look through a dictionary from time to time, so you don't again use English words on the basis of a Hungarian syntax. Dahn 07:18, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have pointed out some things. Answer them here, on my page, or on the article's talk page: but answer them. Your claim that I am "a chauvinist" is purposeful misinformation - if you cannot back, do not use it. Any more of this bullshit and I'll report you. Dahn 15:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, in the 1840s. How is that related to the etymology of "Transylvania"? To clarify: the Middle Ages had no official languages per se, and in-between, as I am sure you know, came a Habsburg Empire which did impose one (in the Modern Age). In fact, the first language it had imposed was German (under Joseph), but then retracted and gave Latin that status. This has nothing to do with the word "Transylvania" - which is a product of Medieval Latin (as used everywhere), not of Romance influence in the Romanian language, but has buttkiss to do with what the Diet did in 1843. Dahn 16:51, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

///////////////////////////////////////////////////

Latin, as the lingua franca in Europe, had a dominant role in Hungarian governmental, economic and cultural life. Moreover, during the Middle Ages and centuries thereafter, Latinalsoserved as the lingua patriae. It wasonly in 1844 that Hungarian became the official national language. From the 10th century on, Latin was used in official communication: the earliest charters and laws were all written in Latin. The first significant Hungarian poet, Janus Pannonius, who lived in the 15th century, wrote all his poems in Latin...

origin :))

http://www.google.com/search?as_qdr=all&q=Latin+the+official+language+of+the+Kingdom+of+Hungary&btnG=Keres%C3%A9s

regards, Ms-pater

1.It looks like your text is agreeing with me: It wasonly in 1844 that Hungarian became the official national language. (a sentence which has the "talent" of bypassing the fact that Hungary did not really exist betwenn cca. 1500 and cca. 1840, but which nonetheless makes my point). 2. The text you posted in this form does not make the necessary comparisson with the rest of Europe: everywhere else in Catholic (and then most Protestant regions), it was the same - so saying "Medival Hungary was dominated by the use of Latin" is like saying "the US has a president, and not a king, because it is a Republic". In other words, it is superfluous. 3. All your edit was rendered pointless by the fact that there is no claim of there being a true Latin origin of the term "Transylvania" (i.e. "from the Romans", with the innate claim to Romanianness or whatever), so you are getting nowhere informative with that. Dahn 01:05, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]